So after cutting out content and adding new content, I hit a giant rock in the road. I finished my first set interviews and test logs but I don't know what the hell I'm doing. I'm not very good at coding or writing dialogue. Well, at least I think I made a decent attempt.

Could you please post your draft to a page on the sandbox? Seeing how things will look in wikidot formatting will help yourself and people giving feedback, and it also lets people look to see how you've developed an idea over time while giving their critique.

Furthermore, I would strongly recommend refining your draft as much as possible before posting it for review. If you think the discovery log and addenda will be necessary to tell your story, it will likely feel incomplete without them. We can't give feedback on things that haven't been written yet, so you'll probably get comments regarding it feeling incomplete (which you seem to already know is true).

Feel free to PM me for feedback once you have the article ported to the sandbox and have refined it as much as you feel able. If you're worried about the core concept, that's something that can be addressed first in the Ideas and Brainstorming forum.

As I noted before, posting this without all planned content undermines any feedback I can give. Those are your opportunities to flesh out characters in what seems to be a decidedly character-focused article. Without those, all the reader really has access to is some summaries too brief to develop feelings of sympathy, disgust, etc., which generally leads to a detached and disinterested feeling by the end. Although the Foundation is typically removed from the emotions of the experiences portrayed in articles, as authors we typically want to evoke some sort of feeling in readers.

Looking at the concept itself, I think that emotion is what's going to make or break your article once the SPaG and tonal issues (noted below) are resolved. I'm not particularly interested in the parasitic plant itself, but if you can successfully make readers feel strongly about the individual instances and their existences, you'll likely be able to garner upvotes.

That all said, you will need to resolve some issues even if the interviews are successful. I've noted some of these below:

Every word in a section header should be capitalized as per the standard template. Divergences from this template can be made for storytelling purposes, but unless there's a clear reason to diverge you should generally follow the template.

All containment cells are located together on site [redacted] in area [redacted].

Redacting information in the containment procedures is generally frowned upon. In-universe, it complicates the ability of anyone to recontain objects in the required places. Out of universe, it generally feels a bit like lazy writing to redact anything that wouldn't be necessary to react. Again, this is something you can do for specific purposes, but doing it spuriously risks downvotes for it.

If an incident were to occur where SCP-XXXX becomes violent because its host or itself feels endangered all staff must distance themselves from SCP-XXXX. SCP-XXXX must be contained as soon as possible so it can be sprayed by a foundation made herbicide. This substance has been designed to temporarily disable SCP-XXXX's abilities during containment breach.

Nothing in this paragraph feels necessary except for the herbicide spraying. Being concise and precise helps maintain clinical tone, so I would recommend shortening this to simply say that the anomaly should be sprayed when it breaches containment. If you want to create a bit of detail to give the impression of in-universe accuracy, you could mention a name or intensity of the necessary herbicide.

Its hosts are all humanoid entities that appear female with roman numerals 1-4 on their foreheads.

The overuse of the pronoun "its" gives this paragraph a somewhat sloppy feeling. I would recommend simply using "SCP-XXXX" when possible.

These four entities provide SCP-XXXX other no benefits besides a body to operate

How does the Foundation know this? As the author, you know everything, but the in-universe can only know things it can plausibly have discovered. Concretely establishing this fact seems difficult.

They can focus on something they take interest in for days or even weeks, but not once have they ever needed to rest.

This sentence just repeats the information in the one before it. Being concise is important throughout the document, and it's boring to the reader to see the same thing multiple times.

Their skin is similar to porcelain but much more durable. As for their clothes, there isn't much to say as it looks like normal high-quality fabric, but they cannot be removed.

This feels overly casual. How durable is their skin? In what ways is it similar to porcelain? Instead of making the comparison, just give the reader the information that justifies that comparison. The same is true of whatever the quasi-fabric is.

the various -letter instances

Without the full interviews you seem to be planning, I'm having difficulty judging these. I would recommend writing those interviews/incidents, then cutting out the overlapping information from their descriptions.

Thank you for your criticism it really helps. I do have one question though, where can I find information regarding "sites" and "areas" in the SCP Foundation facilities? The reason why I put "[redacted]" was to act as a placeholder until I could figure out where an SCP like this one should be.

Unfortunately I cannot agree with Pedantique: although there is some leeway, to avoid canonical inconsistencies, it would be best to follow the pre-established locations. (This DOES NOT mean you cannot make up your own Site or Area, but you should double check your numbering to make sure there is not another Site/Area/Location, etc., that is already existing under that designation.
A current list of known Site/Area location is below, along with other information that will help your location brainstorming/writing be consistent (or at least non-contradictory) with existing information:http://www.scp-wiki.net/secure-facilities-locations

Late reply, but there can only be internal canonical inconsistencies with a piece (unless it’s part of an established canon.) I don’t know anyone who actually bothers checking against that list while reading an article, and there is no overarching canon regardless.